| |
Three recent GSCS Testimonies are attached. One (1), presented yesterday October 18, 2006, by invitation to the Joint Committee on Gov’t Consolidation and Shared Services, presented by ExecutiveDirector Lynne Strickland; (2) as presented Tuesday, October 17, 2006 to the Joint Committee on Public School Funding Reform, presented by Jim O'Neill, GSCS Treasurer and Supt of the Chathams, and Betsy Ginsburg, GSCS Parent Representative and Glen Ridge Board of Education President.
Three recent GSCS Testimonies follow. One (1), presented yesterday October 18.2006, by invitation to the Joint Committee on Gov’t Consolidation and Shared Services;
(2) as presented Tuesday, October 17, 2006 to the Joint Committee on Public School Funding Reform.
GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS
Dr. Marjorie Heller, President
Lynne Strickland, Executive Director
Betsy Ginsburg, Parent Network Representative
Phone 609 394 2828 Fax 609 396 7620 Website ‘gscschools.org’ Email ‘gscs@gmail.com
Testimony before
The Joint Legislative Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services
Statehouse Annex, Committee Room11
October 18, 2006
Good morning Senator Smith and Assemblyman Wisnewski, members of the Joint Committee. I am Lynne Strickland, Executive Director of the
We have a few overall comments for starters:
(1) Please ‘show us the money’. By that, we mean what are the costs involved in effecting any one of the plans before us today? Before the state takes steps to overhaul its education system- and in the name of saving money as its first priority – we should be apprised of inherent costs in these plans so that can appropriately be factored in the best practice of informed decision-making. To have this discussion in the absence of real number on both the plus and minus side of the ledger is very risky business.
(2) Quality of education must be part of the discussion.
(3) We are wary of the need for establishing new and/or extended bureaucracies at the county level, especially when this conversation is focused more on 20th century problems rather than 21st century solutions. (See attached addenda).
(4) Certain issues would actually increase property taxes under consolidation – they require being addressed for this conversation to have realistic legs.
ü Salaries rise to the highest levels of the consolidated group
ü The tax structure in
ü Consolidated districts must assume costs of one another. In the event of consolidation, districts would assume a portion of the debt of the new, consolidated entity, thus raising cost to local taxpayers. For a number of districts, transportation costs, would rise significantly in the event of consolidation. Again, property taxes would rise.
(5) Assure that data used as a basis for this discussion is relevant – e.g., disaggregate Abbott district data from the regular operating district data. It is acknowledged that there are currently two systems of funding in the state, blending the figures of both can result in misleading information, thus ill-informed decisions.
You have asked us to confine our comments – for discussion purposes only - to bills A54, S577, S2266 and S2267. These latter two bills were just sent to us yesterday and are still pending introduction. Mindful of the 5 minute time limit, we will only be able to give you a quick ‘take’ on some of the issues presented by these bills, as follows:
A54/Speaker Roberts
Politicization: Gubernatorial appointment issues –
The county executive superintendent is appointed by the Governor on a biannual basis, with the recommendation of the Commissioner; at the same time, the Commissioner is also appointed by the Governor. Politics could take the lead rather than educational and organizational leadership. How can politicization of the role not occur?
Bureaucracy at the county level will increase –
How can another layer extending bureaucracy and the potential for patronage not be avoided?
Blurring of organizational lines of authority –
The Department of Education Commissioner and the ‘super’ county superintendent are both positions that are awarded by gubernatorial appointments. Which role then would really run the show? In addition to the role of the Commissioner likely being weakened, confusion could override clarity of function; operational delegation and clarity are necessary priorities in well-functioning, efficient bureaucracies.
Local control is diminished in this proposed governance construct –
Executive superintendents have virtual veto power over school budgets as well as administrator contracts. Since their contributions would have less effect, boards of education – local parents and citizens - could lose eventually lose heart and distance themselves from participating in local governance. It is generally accepted that increased local involvement leads to more effective education for children and a higher level of accountability for school districts.
Consolidation recommending power and public vote required –
There are no provisions for local input into consolidation plans; while each affected locality is required to vote on the Commissioner-approved plan, the bill is silent on the what criteria will literally be used to determine if the plan passes or fails. For instance, if 4 communities are affected and 3 out of the 4 vote for the consolidation plan, would that be considered a majority and the plan would then be passed? Or, does the voters’ sentiment in the one community carry the weight in the final outcome?
Executive superintendent’s evaluation is dependent on administrative reduction
No guidelines are stipulated, nor ways to assess qualitatively, what is too much or too little administration. In addition, there is no easy way to determine quantitative guidelines since student demographics and needs differ district to district.
Mandate ‘downsizing’ –
The executive superintendent is granted recommending powers to eliminate certain mandates, while the legislature is given final oversight opportunity as a check and balance. This is positive.
Local districts may apply to executive county superintendent for certain services –
This part of the bill is reminiscent of
S557/Senator Kyrillos:
This bill establishes an interesting structure similar to BOCES (Board of Cooperative Educational Services) in
Since a new school funding formula is to be proposed in the near future, certain questions arise that may require the bill to be reworked however.
The bill establishes two types of County School Business Boards, one for Abbotts and one for all remaining districts. The new school funding formula under current debate is liable to erase the lines between Abbott and regular operating districts, resulting in one system of school funding for all districts with the funding based on the individual students’ needs and not on district wealth.
The cross-involvement with the Business Boards’ membership split between the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Chosen Freeholders gives cause for concerns: competing management styles which could inhibit progress in decision-making and additional bureaucratic layers. Patronage is also a concern.
S2266 and S2677/Senator Smith:
This bill overhauls public education as we know it today, creating a locus of power at the county level (with political appointment power of the Governor, the Chief Executive of the County and the County Board of Chosen Freeholders) that would exercise virtually all critical aspects of school districts’ education program, including instructional programs and personnel. We have included parts of the bill below to demonstrate its overwhelming absorption of school district functions, down to making school boards of education irrelevant and advisory only. Quality education is certainly threatened by this bill.
Per the bill’s statement, S2266 “Provides for submission to voters in each county a binding referendum on the establishment of a county administrative school district to govern and operate all public schools in the county.”
“…a county school board would be established and a chief school administrator would be appointed by the Governor, and they would be responsible for supervising the operations of the county district. A board of school estimate would develop a county administrative school district budget and would determine the amount of school taxes necessary for the operation of the district. The law would allow local boards of education to remain in place, however, these boards would only be advisory. The law also would provide that students remain in the school in which they were enrolled prior to the establishment of the county administrative school district….”
“…(the Office of the State Auditor estimates that current salaries and benefits costs of local) superintendents of schools, assistant superintendents of schools, school business administrators, and information technology coordinators currently employed in local public school districts, county vocational school districts, and county special services school districts equals approximately $553 million Statewide… (the bill further states that)…The elimination of these positions would be factored into the overall cost savings that may be realized by the establishment of a county administrative school district…”
______________________________________________
There are a number of compelling issues that are stand out in these bills and that challenge common sense:
1. Whither quality education? In order to determine and shape the most fitting instructional and delivery system for student bodies, it is most effective to have those decisions in the hands of those who are most intimate with the students in the districts. One size does not fit all, and a gubernatorial appointee who is imposed on local district determinations - and an appointed county board - cannot have the local sensitivity (of school district administrators and local school boards) and knowledge base when sprung from, and having to answer to, the ‘political top down’.
2. The ballot as configured has to prejudice the voters: The purported savings, by county, are listed right on the ballot. These so-called savings are not a net figure, rather only a simple listing of totals achieved by eliminating jobs of four main district administrative positions. What are the costs that would be incurred in setting up a county district system and why are they not noted? What are the personnel costs involved therein to support the 74 districts in
3. Why are county vocational and special services schools included when they already are county-based?
4. What kind of additional bureaucracy will be created at the county level to literally fulfill the functions of the local districts? How political might the bureaucracy be when the positions are appointed by the Governor?
5. How will teacher contracts, for instance, be negotiated and to what reasonable extent could taxpayers be further burdened when, most likely, faced with salaries and benefits being lifted to the highest package in the county?
6. With no local district chief in charge, for instance, how will the county administrator effectively and quickly deal with emergencies that occur, especially in more than one district at the same time….
7. Local parents will “vote with their feet” in the event of the major disruption and possible diminution of quality education that could be caused by conversion to a county-based system. Local property values would decline.
____________________________________________________________________
S2267 EXCERPTS: The county board would consist of the county superintendent of schools and four members appointed by the chief elected executive officer of the county, or the director of the board of chosen freeholders, with the advice and consent of that board, as appropriate to the appointment procedures established by the form of government of the county. The bill would require each member of the board to be a citizen and resident of the county during service and for the three years preceding appointment. The bill would permit no more than two members of the same political party to serve on a county board. County boards would organize annually on November 1 by the election of a president and vice-president.
County boards would have the power to:
a. Make purchases and to enter into contracts for the provision or performance of goods or services;
b. Provide or contract for the provision of transportation for all public and nonpublic pupils within the county;
c. Purchase, sell, and improve school grounds, erect, purchase, lease, enlarge, improve, and repair school buildings, including any building or buildings for school purposes owned by any municipality in the county, with or without furnishings and equipment, and purchase school furniture and other necessary equipment;
d. Take and condemn land and other property for school purposes in the manner provided by law regulating the ascertainment and payment of compensation for property condemned and taken for public uses;
e. Insure school buildings, furniture, and other school property, and receive, lease, and hold in trust any and all real and personal property for the benefit of the school district;
f. Employ and dismiss district supervisors, principals, teachers, janitors, mechanics, and laborers; fix, alter, and order paid their salaries and compensation, and prescribe the course of study to be pursued;
g. Appoint a treasurer and fix the treasurer’s salary and term of office;
h. Make, amend, and repeal rules for its own government, for the transaction of business, and for the government and management of the school and school property under its control;
i. Provide textbooks and other necessary supplies and apparatus;
j. Adopt an official seal by which all its official acts may be authenticated;
k. Make an annual report to the commissioner on or before August 1 in the manner and form prescribed by him;
l. Appoint a secretary and fix his salary and term of office; and
m. Do all other acts and things that may be necessary for the proper organization and functioning of the public schools of the district during its first year.
Provisions of law relating to contracts for the furnishing of goods or services that are applicable to a board of education of a local school district would be applicable to a county board.
The position of chief school administrator would be appointed by contract by the Governor for a term of no fewer than three nor more than five years. An appropriate certificate, as prescribed by the State board, would be required for the position. The chief school administrator would have general supervision over all aspects of the county administrative school district, including fiscal operations and instructional programs, under rules and regulations prescribed by the State board, and would have such other powers and perform such additional duties as may be prescribed by the board of education of the county administrative school district.
ADDENDA:
TWENTIETH CENTURY SOLUTIONS FOR TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY PROBLEMS
Across the state out member districts are looking to new, cost efficient ways of delivering high quality, more customized education. These educational innovations include the use of accredited distance learning programs, cooperative arrangements with local colleges and universities and the sharing of best practices through benchmarking consortiums. Innovations like these are already a reality in some districts and will become reality in many more—perhaps the majority—in the next five to ten years. Creating incentives that will help facilitate these twenty-first century solutions will ultimately be much more cost effective than old-fashioned remedies like expensive and disruptive forced consolidations or the creation of county-based systems with the attendant growth in expensive bureaucracy and the loss of local accountability.
NEWS EXCERPTS RE SALARIES INCREASING WITH MERGERS:
A
"There are reasons to consolidate municipalities, but I would argue that cost saving is probably not one of them," said Dr. Enid Slack, of the Munk Centre for International Studies. When towns combined, Slack said, workers' salaries usually gravitated up to the level in the higher-paying municipality, costing more money. ..”
Assoc Press 9-7-06: “…William Dressel, director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said Slack's comments confirm his position that consolidating local government does not produce major tax savings. "In fact, the
#1 Jim O’Neill, GSCS Treasurer;Superintendent of School District of the
Thank you; I appreciate the opportunity to address the legislators and the public today regarding the pressing issue of school funding. First, I will make a few philosophical statements that I believe need to be weighed as any changes in the school funding formula are considered. Then I will bullet some specific ideas that I believe the legislature should consider so that in the end the formula is fair, the state can fund it, and public schools in
My district is a charter member of the Garden State Coalition of Schools and I want to go on record as supporting the guidelines and principles that organization has articulated and recommended to you as you sort through the thorny issues that surround school funding.
A one-dimensional measurement for success in funding schools will be a disservice to the students, the public and the state. If cost is the only factor that is considered by the legislature we will over time become a state of mediocre school districts. There are many excellent districts in this state and to preserve that excellence I suggest that you cannot arrive at a new method for funding schools unless you also look to quality. I am not sure this is as hard as it would appear. There are close to 600 operating districts in the state, why not identify the middle 50 in terms of cost per pupil. Then look at those same 50 and identify the districts that have performed well by all standardized measures over the last 5 years. Use this number as your goal for funding students and the cost of their education. This is a real number, it gives a benchmark that should work for the great majority of districts and students even if additional money is required to help disadvantaged students enter school ready to learn.
There is a lot of evidence that people have to have an investment of their own resources to be vested in the outcome. Reaching the goal of every community funding its schools to a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 85% insures that goal is met while recognizing that community resources vary significantly. What message does it send students in a community if they can find hundreds of millions of dollars to build an athletic center for professional sports but can only fund their own students education to 5% or less? The other advantage of this is that some income tax money comes back to the community to support the education of your own children. Everyone recognizes there are significant differences in the resources of communities throughout the state. There is, however, reason to question a formula that may have some districts paying 5% or less of their own costs and other communities funding 95% of their own costs.
The problem with most formulas to date is that they do not recognize that some people in more disadvantaged communities could afford a great deal more and many citizens in affluent communities cannot afford what is asked of them. There needs to be a higher degree of fairness in the final formula. This is especially true for senior citizens. Any formula that does not recognize and accommodate the legitimate needs of senior citizens will be a failure. If you cannot find something you believe will work state wide then I recommend that you give municipalities greater latitude to develop programs that meet the needs of their own seniors. Something akin to a reverse mortgage should work. Property taxes are capped when the individual retires but the municipality keeps track of the difference until the owner or the owner’s heirs sell the house. When those uncollected taxes are recouped they would deflate the taxes that need to be raised by everyone else that year. This would have to apply to primary residences not second homes. The end result is that all contribute their fair share just not at the same time. It would recognize this dilemma which annually forces people of good will to go to the polls and decide between the needs of one generation and the needs of another generation.
Please look to do something with the Interim Taxes. I have not seen this discussed anywhere. There has been tremendous development in many of our communities, new homes and new developments. Since the school budget is set at a specific number in April none of the money that comes in from these new developments goes to the schools yet it is collected in the name of schools. This money should go into a special interest bearing account and should decrease school taxes that have to be raised the following year. Now they are raised under the guise of school taxes but they go to municipal projects or reserve accounts and help make municipal tax increases look artificially low. This is blatantly unfair. If the money does not go to schools don’t call it school taxes.
I recognize it is difficult but I believe it would be fair to make an attempt to separate social services from true educational expenses. No one doubts that certain communities present schools with very difficult social issues but these are clearly social not educational expenses. We have no choice but to address the social issue for humanitarian reasons but it is an education that will allow young people to extricate themselves from these circumstances and make a better life for themselves. Many of the dollars that flow to the Abbott districts are for social services; this artificially and unfairly inflates the cost of education.
Why are there no state wide dedicated taxes for schools? We are told to buy lottery tickets to support education but those dollars go into one general account and only go to schools as the legislature determines. If lottery money actually went to schools you may have financial issues elsewhere but education would not be the tax whipping boy it has become.
Every state decides on the testing format that will meet NCLB requirements. We have opted for a fairly rigorous test over multiple days. Then we send 7-10 million dollars to
I know this is moving to another area of the funding issue but the state needs to give districts some tools to help control salaries and health benefits. When the state budget went up 17% 2 years ago it was noted that salaries and benefits were the main cost drivers. Those same things drive our budgets. In all of the rhetoric that criticizes local boards of education and administrators there has not been one piece of legislation that helps us or gives us a tool to deal with these costs. Recently the legislature took away the boards ability to impose the ‘last best offer’. Now we are in protracted negotiations, with expensive legal fees and no end in sight. This legislation was directly contrary to the goal of placing limits on the growth of school budgets. Likewise any attempt to force us all into the state’s health benefits plan will cost many of us millions of dollars because we have negotiated a better deal than you have.
For at least 6 years I have been at meetings when we recommended to the commissioner and his/her staff that they look at another way to resolve conflicts with parents over special education cases and placements. The
There are many examples of unintended consequences coming out of well-intended legislation. I will give you 4 examples:
· Hiring the lowest bidder in construction projects
o This has resulted in hiring sub standard contractors who do lousy work and cost us unanticipated dollars in litigation and remedial work because the work done was to such a poor standard. The lowest responsible contractor would be a better standard.
· 1701 has pushed all of us to spend every dollar every year or our cap will be reduced. There is nothing in that legislation that encourages a district to save money or be prudent. The consequence of being prudent is to reduce your own cap the next year. You are unintentionally punishing districts that are trying to be fiscally responsible.
· When you lowered our cap reserve to 2% you pushed Moody’s to lower our credit rating, which was higher than the states. They knew that due to the law we could not raise our reserve and consequently lowered our rating to the same as the state when previously we were one of 18 districts with credit ratings higher than the state.
· Legal fees as administrative cost. Hiring a lawyer to protect the public’s investment in education, facilities and personnel is often the only way to protect the investment of public funds. There are times it would be irresponsible not to do this but you have tied it to last year’s numbers when it often bears no relationship to last year. Maybe there was no construction last year, maybe no negotiations.
Finally I make these 2 points:
· I personally believe it would be a disaster to hold school board elections in November even though you say they will remain non-partisan. How does that work, 2 candidates for mayor, one supports the school budget, one attacks the school budget. I think we all recognize that becomes partisan very quickly
· There has been a great deal in the papers lately about the reasons people leave
I thank you for your time and this opportunity.
#2 Besty Ginsburg, GSCS parent and Board of Education president,
GARDEN STATE COALITION OF SCHOOLS/GSCS
Dr. Marjorie Heller., President
Lynne Strickland, Executive Director
Betsy Ginsburg, Parent Network Representative
Phone 609 394 2828 Fax 609 396 7620 Website ‘gscschools.org’ Email ‘gscs@gmail.com
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING REFORM
October 17, 2006
Good afternoon, Senator Adler, Assemblyman Conaway and members of the committee. My name is Elisabeth Ginsburg, and I am President of the Board of Education in Glen Ridge Public Schools and a Board Member of the Garden State Coalition of Schools. I am pleased to be here today to offer testimony on behalf of the
I had the privilege of testifying before you on September 5, and offered a number of cost-saving measures that have already been implemented by members of the Garden State Coalition. Today I would like to round out that testimony by sharing my constituents’ major concerns about the new funding formula that your committee is charged with creating.
- Quality First: Statistics—including advances in standardized test scores at all grade levels, impressive SAT and Advanced Placement (AP) test scores and the high percentage of high school graduates going on to college--suggest that the vast majority of New Jersey’s districts are performing well. Any funding formula that diminishes quality education squanders our children’s futures, jeopardizes the State’s business and real estate climate and will cost money in the long run.
- Equity: Testimony before your own committee has demonstrated how the inequities in the current funding formulae have created polarization in the State’s communities, turning municipalities against school districts, seniors against young families, suburbanites against urban dwellers and the business community against the education community. At present 45% (a national extreme) of the districts in
- Special Education: Special education services are among the most necessary and expensive of any services provided to public school students. All of our state’s most vulnerable students need State aid, regardless of where they live. Equalization of Special Education aid would deprive needy students in some districts of any State support. Do not abandon these children based on assumptions about the relative wealth of their communities.
- Twenty-first Century Solutions for Twenty-First Century Challenges: Those of us working on the local level know that the classroom of the future will provide a much more customized education to every student, whether it is through new methods of direct classroom instruction; accredited, interactive distance learning; or educational experiences provided through partnerships with other districts, local businesses and/or institutions of higher learning. Those changes are already taking place in many of
Addendum: I submit the following information but chose not to read it due to time constraints.
· Consolidation in certain cases makes a lot of sense but consolidation is
going to cost some districts a fortune consequently I recommend that we share numbers with communities so they can make an informed decision. Blanket consolidation is going to be at a prohibitive cost for many districts
· High performance in schools does not happen by accident, it is the result of multiple factors. One factor is a knowledgeable individual who is vested in the well being of the students, staff and culture of the school. How is a county bureaucrat who is dealing with hundreds, maybe thousands of openings going to be sure we are sending the right 5th grade teacher to certain school or we are hiring the right science teacher? That individual is only going to be interested in filling empty classroom teaching spots, not the quality of the candidate. I know it is opposite of the emphasis that the legislature has but if you truly wanted to see a change in the 3 state take over districts I believe you would divide those big districts into 10 smaller districts so the superintendent could get to know the teachers and be visible in the community and the schools.
· One of the proposals is to consolidate services at the county level including ‘personnel and curriculum’. In my professional opinion this would be an absolute disaster and ensure the deterioration of school districts. It may be possible to consolidate more factual aspects of central office operations like (e.g. payroll)
· What quality candidates do we anticipate we will attract to these county superintendent positions? Do we expect that principals making more than the county superintendent will apply for these jobs? Do we believe that these jobs will attract large numbers of qualified people?
· The biggest districts in the state are among the most expensive to run on a per pupil cost. What evidence does that give us that bigger is cheaper?
· After the first year when you save all the superintendent salaries what do you do the next year? Now you have large countywide offices with multiple assistants, where is the savings?
